do u agree with Alabama,Clemson,Notre Dame and Oklahoma? I don’t agree with Notre Dame. Who did they really beat? Maybe Michigan but after that nobody who really sets the world on fire. Not like they had to run the gauntlet against a lot of good teams. Virginia Tech sucks usc sucks Florida State sucks and the rest of the schedule is weak.
CFP
- Thread starter sctarheel30
- Start date
Stanford and Cuse aren't that bad. Pittsburg was solid as well this year, although hardly a world beater.
I highly doubt that Notre Dame ever willingly gives up their football status. I'm one of the few Notre Dame football fans.
I don't have any problem with the 4 teams. It's the same 4 teams just about every year.
I don't have any problem with the 4 teams. It's the same 4 teams just about every year.
Stanford and Cuse don't suck, dude. ND won all their games while OSU got punished by Purdue and UGA lost two games. I think the committee got it right, and I'm no fan of ND.
Cuse sucks we should’ve beat them
I’ll give U Stanford but that’s it. I’m fine with Notre Dame being there it’s just if I had to take one team out it would be them. Well weak schedule
Best chance of speeding that up was Ga. winning. We'd have the SEC and ACClight. The rest of the country would have screamed.
How do you accomplish that? A play-in game? I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Just put 16 teams in the damn thing and be done.
I haven’t thought deeply about how to accomplish it, just want it to be done. Do away with regular season game and maybe the conference championships. Have the CFP pick the 16 best teams and play the games
Sorry, I see now you meant the cfp needs a minimum of 16 teams, not 16 games. I agree with you. I have some thoughts but the main one is I just want more teams in the playoffs. I've heard many of the arguments against moving to more teams. I don't find them that compelling.
Sixteen is too many, it should be eight. You take the winner from each of the Power 5 conferences and you're left over with three at large bids for teams like Georgia or UCF.
Eight gives you your conference champs and a couple of at-larges, is certainly enough to cover the teams with a legit claim to being the best in the land, and only adds one more round of games to what we have now. Still gives value to the regular season since the primary way in is to win your conference.
You're always going to get complaints from the first few teams on the outside looking in, no matter how many teams are included, but a three-round, eight-team playoff looks right to me.
You're always going to get complaints from the first few teams on the outside looking in, no matter how many teams are included, but a three-round, eight-team playoff looks right to me.
Eight would be an ideal number. The 5 "power 5" conf. champs, plus 3 wild cards, hopefully to include a team life UCF, USF, Troy, etc.
There has to be some concrete criteria for getting into the playoffs, not just somebody's, no matter whose, opinions.
" I think they're one of the best 4 teams" is not criteria.
There has to be some concrete criteria for getting into the playoffs, not just somebody's, no matter whose, opinions.
" I think they're one of the best 4 teams" is not criteria.
Remember the schedule is set years ahead of time. Going to VT and USC, in most years, is tough! Add Michigan, Stanford, and FSU (who is usually pretty good), ND has a tough schedule year in and year out.
Yes I realize that but they lucked out and most of the teams on their schedule were pitiful this year.
